Streamlining the skill descriptions - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Lagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

W/

12 Oct 2007 at 16:42 - 1

One of my pet peeves with Guild Wars' skill system, is the way some of the skill descriptions are ambiguously worded.

Especially for skills that work in a similar fashion, the wording is often very different, confusing or outright wrong.

A simple example. Let's consider the Axe Attack Dismember.

[skill]Dismember[/skill]

Dismember Axe Attack. If it hits, this axe blow will inflict a Deep Wound on the target foe, lowering that foe's maximum Health by 20% for 5...17 seconds.

Let's examine this.

If it hits, this axe blow

This is where the trouble starts. Some Axe Attacks are worded "If <name of the skill> hits" (e.g. Eviscerate, but then again, we already knew it was called that, so why bother naming it again), others are more concise "If this attack hits" (e.g. Executioner's Strike) and then this one speaks of an "axe blow", just to complicate things even further.

You could argue that this was done to make the descriptions "not uniform, meaning less boring". Though I think it's rather "not uniform, meaning we are lazy". There's already plenty of originality in the naming and icon of the skill, let's keep the wording as simple and clear as possible.

will inflict a Deep Wound on the target foe

Now that's a wording I really like. You can't possibly misinterpret this. Okay, you could possibly get rid of "the" in "the target foe", but let's not be overzealous. However, compare this to the Sword Attack Sever Artery: "the opponent begins Bleeding". Then the problem branches even further, compare Sever Artery to Rotting Flesh: "Target fleshy creature becomes Diseased". Shouldn't that be the case for Sever Artery as well, as only fleshy creatures can suffer from Bleeding? You can see where this is going.

lowering that foe's maximum Health by 20% for 5...17 seconds.

Aah, the icing on the cake. Not only is this redundant, since you can just look at the description of Deep Wound and... hey wait a minute, that's not what Deep Wound does at all.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Deep_wound

Not only does Deep Wound lower target foe's maximum Health by 20% (up to a maximum of 100 Health), it also lowers their healing by 20%. So this wording is not only ambiguous, it's redundant and incomplete at the same time. Same thing with Sever Artery's "losing health over time", there's actually no health loss, only health degeneration. And even worse Rotting Flesh's "slowly loses health". Okay, so Disease's -4 health degeneration is "slowly" yet Bleeding's -3 is just "over time". And nothing is mentioned at all concerning Disease's contagious properties. Not that it should, you can simply look up what Disease does.

By now, I'm sure you think I'm a neurotic perfectionist who should just go out more, and while I can agree with at least two out of three of these statements, have a look at my reworked skill description of Dismember first.

Dismember Axe Attack. If this attack hits, you inflict a Deep Wound on target foe for 5...17 seconds.

BAM! Wowzers! Inconceivable! Clear, short, unambiguous, no redundancy.

And for kicks, let's do the previously mentioned Sever Artery and Rotting Flesh as well.

Rotting Flesh Spell. Target fleshy creature becomes Diseased for 10...22 seconds.

Not a big change, just removed the redundant part.

Sever Artery Sword Attack. If this attack hits, target fleshy creature begins Bleeding for 5...21 seconds.

Heck, it might even stop the odd Wammo from taking it to The Underworld.

Now you might argue that there's more urgent things to be done, that the wording is "clear enough to be understood" and that, last but not least, veteran players already know what a skill does. Exactly.

How about the newer players? Well, if we're not to care about them anymore and the main focus now is GW2, then at least have the skills in GW2 streamlined (if there are still such things as skills in GW2) or at least hire some people to do it.

But if hiring people is too expensive and you have no time to lose since you're all hard at work on GW2, let the community do it.

Seriously, we'll do it. Trust me. If you give us the opportunity, I'll be beaten to it a thousand times over by the Wiki people who'll jump on this like flies on sh-- sherry.

We're actually crazy enough about this game to streamline and proofread them for you. For free. All you'll have to do is copy/paste.

What say you?

makosi

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

"Pre-nerf" is incorrect. It's pre-buff.

Requirement Begins With R [notQ]

Me/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:03 - 2

I've been thinking of this for a long time although I'm a particularly picky git.

I believe these descriptions served a purpose in 2005 before there were elaborate wikis and knowledge was generally poor. Now they are, as you say, redundant.

On the whole, I commend Anet for their English clarity.

~

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apply Poison

For 24 seconds, foes struck by your physical attacks become Poisoned for 3...13 seconds.

'Physical' is ambiguous here because the term physical is often used as an opponent to elemental, however elemental weapons still inflict poison. I'm unsure what this could be changed with because simply changing 'physical attacks' to 'attacks' would be untrue since wands/staves do not inflict poison while under the effects of Apply Poison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

A fiery phoenix rises at your location, striking adjacent foes for 7...91 fire damage, and flies out to your target, exploding on impact. This explosion strikes for an additional 15...75 fire damage.

It's a tad flowery. My suggestion would be to change it to: All adjacent foes take 7...91 fire damage. Send out a projectile that strikes target foe and all adjacent foes for 7...91 fire damage.

Saphrium

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Oct 2006

Granite Citadel

Post Searing Ascalonian Merchants

N/Me

12 Oct 2007 at 17:03 - 3

Anet has done a great job on the streamlining the skill descriptions, "Wild" prefix, "disrupting" prefix, "attunement" suffix, "x was y" etc.

Sure, I would like to say this is a rather good idea.

CHunterX

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Sep 2005

Washington

W/E

12 Oct 2007 at 17:06 - 4

But copy/paste is haaaaaard!

Darkobra

Forge Runner

Join Date: Aug 2006

Scotland

Type like an idiot, I'll treat you like an idiot

E/Me

12 Oct 2007 at 17:17 - 5

You had me right up until you said "they can just look it up".

October Jade

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jul 2005

drifting between Indiana and NorCal

12 Oct 2007 at 17:30 - 6

I agree wholeheartedly. Uniformity and brevity should be the primary aims of skill descriptions. If the community does all the legwork, it would be splendid that ANet adopt the changes.

The text for Mend Ailment makes me cry inside.

Lagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

W/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:32 - 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saphrium

Anet has done a great job on the streamlining the skill descriptions, "Wild" prefix, "disrupting" prefix, "attunement" suffix, "x was y" etc.

Sure, I would like to say this is a rather good idea.

No, those are the skill names, not the skill descriptions (the text).

And I can't really agree with the skill names being unambiguous either, though I care a lot less about those and see them more as "artistic liberty".

Compare the following:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Distracting_Shot

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Distracting_Blow

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Distracting_Strike

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Disrupting_Chop

Sure, "Wild" means it will end Stances and "Distracting" or "Disrupting" means it will interrupt an action or Skill, but that's where the similarities end.

Let's leave skill naming at that (most skills don't follow this rule anyway) and focus on the descriptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkobra

You had me right up until you said "they can just look it up".

Since Isle of the Nameless, the Official Wiki and /help, there really is no more excuse not to know (or learn).

Besides, these changes would actually help (new) players who are not yet in the know. I'm sure a lot of people don't realise Deep Wound also has healing altering properties and is limited to removing 100 Health.

HawkofStorms

Hall Hero

Join Date: Aug 2005

E/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:33 - 8

Though there is SOME inconsistancy (especially when it comes to conditions, calling them "negative conditions" like with crystal wave or by listing them all out like with purge conditions) but for the most part, a.net's wording is very good. Skills have a LOT of nuicences that a.net maintains (look at how Bathazar's Pendelm won't prevent KD caused by a hex like thunderclap since the KD isn't caused "by a foe.")

Shiishii Momo

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Nov 2006

I need a guild, R5 KOBD

N/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:34 - 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

'Physical' is ambiguous here because the term physical is often used as an opponent to elemental, however elemental weapons still inflict poison. I'm unsure what this could be changed with because simply changing 'physical attacks' to 'attacks' would be untrue since wands/staves do not inflict poison while under the effects of Apply Poison.

I spent a lot of time on my first warrior trying to find a sword that did "physical" damage as opposed to all the swords I had that did "slashing" damage. Very poorly worded skill descriptors.

Darkobra

Forge Runner

Join Date: Aug 2006

Scotland

Type like an idiot, I'll treat you like an idiot

E/Me

12 Oct 2007 at 17:35 - 10

You're right. There is already information on-hand about these topics and plenty of places to learn from. So why a skill description change is absolutely necessary is just creating the goose chase. That, and it'd never happen anyway. They'd fob you off down the line until you get the "Wait until GW2" excuse.

CHunterX

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Sep 2005

Washington

W/E

12 Oct 2007 at 17:40 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

The text for Mend Ailment makes me cry inside.

I think Mend Ailment's description is so long and repetitive to turn people away from using that crap skill and use Dismiss Conditions instead, a far superior skill.

While on the note of Mend Ailment and Mend Condition; Neither of them mention they remove Cracked Armor. I was under the assumption they did.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

12 Oct 2007 at 17:43 - 12

OP: I think you are absolutely right.

There are many more skills that need a better description. After all, this is not about poetry or diversity, but about the clarity of the skill description.

Lagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

W/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:48 - 13

Apply Poison Preparation. For 24 seconds, foes struck by your martial weapon attacks become Poisoned for 3...13 seconds.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Martial_weapon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

After all, this is not about poetry or diversity, but about the clarity of the skill description.

There's room enough for poetry and diversity in the skill name and skill icon, even in parts of the skill description (inflict a Deep Wound, begin Bleeding, become Poisoned etc.), all I'm asking for is some conformity for the sake of clarity.

I'm just afraid many people will people will consider conformity to be boring. While I can respect that point of view, I think it comes over as sloppy.

And yes, of course this won't happen, but one can dream, right?

Arduin

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

The Netherlands

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

R/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:50 - 14

Wholeheartedly agreeing here. Should at the same time change all the "suffers Health Degeneration of -5" to "suffers Health Degeneration of 5" or "suffers Health Regeneration of -5". The way this (still!) is phrased is just blatantly wrong, implying you get healed when you are hexed with, say, Conjure Phantasm:

[skill]Conjure Phantasm[/skill]

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

12 Oct 2007 at 17:58 - 15

Spell. Remove one Condition (Poison, Disease, Blindness, Dazed, Bleeding, Crippled, Burning, Weakness, or Deep Wound) from target other ally. If a Condition is removed, that ally is healed for 5...57...70 Health.

->

Spell. Remove one Condition from target other ally. If a Condition is removed, that ally is healed for 5...57...70 Health.

Some little cleanup like this wouldnt hurt

Also, for example:

Bloot ritual:

Sacrifice 17% maximum Health. For 8...13 seconds, target touched ally gains +3 Energy regeneration. Blood Ritual cannot be used on the caster. - there is clear wording for that "target other ally"

lyra_song

Hell's Protector

Join Date: Oct 2005

R/Mo

12 Oct 2007 at 19:45 - 16

Havent we been trying to do this for a while now?

We need a much cleaner skill description system.

PLEASE Anet.

Aethon

Academy Page

Join Date: Aug 2007

12 Oct 2007 at 22:44 - 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Wholeheartedly agreeing here. Should at the same time change all the "suffers Health Degeneration of -5" to "suffers Health Degeneration of 5" or "suffers Health Regeneration of -5". The way this (still!) is phrased is just blatantly wrong, implying you get healed when you are hexed with, say, Conjure Phantasm

Technically, the current wording for that is correct. Gaining a negative value is the same as losing a positive value, but I can imagine it being confusing if you don't look closely ('suffer regeneration'?). Whenever possible, positive and negative signs should not be used, thereby avoiding this problem. Reworded, I'd see it as "suffers 5 health degeneration".

But I do see a lot of junk, the attack speed affecting skills especially. A lot of skills could use a touch up, especially in non-English languages. Of course, if they went out and fixed these descriptions, I imagine they would have to fix the bugs with a bunch of them, too (otherwise the new description wouldn't be any more accurate).

Diddy bow

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2006

Jawsome!!!!!!!!!!!

looking for one :p

A/D

12 Oct 2007 at 22:47 - 18

Id rather the skills just worked the way they say in the descriptions tbh...

Antheus

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

12 Oct 2007 at 23:21 - 19

The skills mentioned above specifically stem from WPE, BWE times.

Since everyone was a noob, and there was no manual, yet you started in LA, the descriptions that were given to characters by default had to be more verbose.

But since it didn't matter, they were never reworded.

The reason for this is simply that those skills served as original tutorial.

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

13 Oct 2007 at 02:24 - 20

I made this thread already.

Of course, I still fully agree. Anet's templating is awful, though thankfully, it seems to be mostly restricting to Prophecies skills--the newer ones are quite a bit better.

You can't see me

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

USA

P/W

13 Oct 2007 at 02:36 - 21

I really don't see much point to that. It's not like they're blatently overdone, the abreviations are no shorter than about the maximum of seven words. No offense, but I'd like to see Arenanet's focus on larger problems *Cough* Loot Scaling...

Saphrium

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Oct 2006

Granite Citadel

Post Searing Ascalonian Merchants

N/Me

13 Oct 2007 at 03:24 - 22

Well, i know a lot of the old skill descriptions are not revised because it was not a common knowledge to what is a condition back then. Now I think we can revise a lot of them to fit better with the system.

But I still like to point out that a lot of the skill descriptions uses specific words for a reason. For example, "foe suffers" also means it is armor ignoring, "you deal" or "you inflict" is not armor ignoring unless otherwise mentioned.

Aethon

Academy Page

Join Date: Aug 2007

13 Oct 2007 at 04:51 - 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saphrium

Well, I know a lot of the old skill descriptions are not revised because it was not a common knowledge to what is a condition back then. Now I think we can revise a lot of them to fit better with the system.

But I still like to point out that a lot of the skill descriptions uses specific words for a reason. For example, "foe suffers" also means it is armor ignoring, "you deal" or "you inflict" is not armor ignoring unless otherwise mentioned.

This could be part of the reason why there are so many people running around who don't know how to play the game very well. The knowledge that "foe suffers" is armor ignoring, for example, cannot be uncovered in the normal course of the game except by accident, otherwise they have to go to a fansite. And by Arena.net's own words, only a small fraction ever do the latter.

So I suppose, not only should they be fixed to reflect what they actually do, but they should also be more verbose in what they do.

I Phoenix I

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jan 2007

The Elite Lords of Chaos [LoC]

R/

13 Oct 2007 at 05:45 - 24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Apply Poison Preparation. For 24 seconds, foes struck by your martial weapon attacks become Poisoned for 3...13 seconds.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Martial_weapon

The problem with that is the description of "martial weapon".

Quote:

Martial weapons are weapons that cause non-magical, physical damage per default (not modified with an elemental damage prefix weapon upgrade), as opposed to spellcasting weapons.

It would mean elemental damage from a bow or something would not cause Poison.

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

13 Oct 2007 at 09:52 - 25

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Phoenix I

The problem with that is the description of "martial weapon".

It would mean elemental damage from a bow or something would not cause Poison.

Err, no, it means that martial weapon have default physical damage when not modified by upgrade.

Martial weapon is good description.

Lagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

W/

13 Oct 2007 at 13:00 - 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

I really don't see much point to that. It's not like they're blatently overdone, the abreviations are no shorter than about the maximum of seven words. No offense, but I'd like to see Arenanet's focus on larger problems *Cough* Loot Scaling...

The skill descriptions simply lack polish. And this lack of polish could be easily tuned up by having a community effort dedicated to it.

No need for ArenaNet to spend any time at all doing this (except copy/paste the end results).

Do not underestimate the power of a dedicated community.

We can do a lot more than just whine. The Wikis are an excellent example of that.

Of course, ArenaNet needs to greenlight this first, or we might as well be doing it all for nothing.

Also bear in mind that we are by no means altering any skills or game mechanics, we're simply clearing up their descriptions. Nothing more.

Heck, we could almost do it in TexMod, though the skill descriptions are not textures but actual text, I reckon.

But you see where I'm getting at.

Loot scaling, the example you cited, is a game mechanic, a feature and working exactly as ArenaNet intended it.

It's part of Guild Wars' code and not something we should have any access to.

If your post was simply an excuse to whine about Loot Scaling, go do it somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Loot Scaling either, but let's try and focus on things we can improve as a community.

Ephidel

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Aug 2007

[EE]

N/

14 Oct 2007 at 21:38 - 27

This is a well-written idea, and a good argument too. I've been playing this game since Prophecies and Deep Wound giving less benefit from healing is news to me (unless I just forgot, but that was still years ago).

CHunterX

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Sep 2005

Washington

W/E

15 Oct 2007 at 14:41 - 28

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Bloot ritual:

Sacrifice 17% maximum Health. For 8...13 seconds, target touched ally gains +3 Energy regeneration. Blood Ritual cannot be used on the caster. - there is clear wording for that "target other ally"

Target other ally is used for so many other spells, its fine how it is.

Gigashadow

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Aug 2005

Bellevue, WA

W/

15 Oct 2007 at 17:31 - 29

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHunterX

Target other ally is used for so many other spells, its fine how it is.

/head implodes.

That is the entire point of being consistent; the same wording is used to mean the same thing everywhere possible. You are advocating using different wording everywhere "just to be different", which is the exact opposite of what would actually make sense.

iridescentfyre

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Mar 2006

W/

15 Oct 2007 at 17:39 - 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Err, no, it means that martial weapon have default physical damage when not modified by upgrade.

Martial weapon is good description.

I agree completely, except for the fact that half the community would read that and say, "OMG WUTS A MARSHULL WEAPON LOL"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restore Condition

Elite Spell. Remove all Conditions (Poison, Disease, Blindness, Dazed, Bleeding, Crippled, Burning, Weakness, and Deep Wound) from target other ally. For each Condition removed, that ally is healed for 10...58...70 Health.

Gee, thanks for the list. Now I know what things are conditions.

Ekelon

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Dec 2005

Rebel Rising [rawr]

A/W

15 Oct 2007 at 17:43 - 31

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

Quote:

A fiery phoenix rises at your location, striking adjacent foes for 7...91 fire damage, and flies out to your target, exploding on impact. This explosion strikes for an additional 15...75 fire damage.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

iridescentfyre

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Mar 2006

W/

15 Oct 2007 at 17:51 - 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

I have no problem with stuff like that, because there's no redundancy in that description.

I remember about a week after I started, being a noob W/E (with 20 energy...) and being so disappointed that my 15-energy "fiery phoenix" was just a pretty basic looking fireball.

Saphrium

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Oct 2006

Granite Citadel

Post Searing Ascalonian Merchants

N/Me

15 Oct 2007 at 18:08 - 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aethon

This could be part of the reason why there are so many people running around who don't know how to play the game very well. The knowledge that "foe suffers" is armor ignoring, for example, cannot be uncovered in the normal course of the game except by accident, otherwise they have to go to a fansite. And by Arena.net's own words, only a small fraction ever do the latter.

So I suppose, not only should they be fixed to reflect what they actually do, but they should also be more verbose in what they do.

A lot of these consistency things are left uncovered, which I think is great for separating casual players from players who likes to do a little digging for themselves, after all it is an example of skill>time. In order to gain quickest access to information, you have to learn the lingoes and standards.

Giving another example, I would have never realized how powerful and convenient UNIX system is until I started to learn it. If I didn't take the time to learn it, I would still stuck in Windows GUI world for the next decade. Then again how many Windows users would realize that?

Actually I still need a little learning curve to get used to "martial weapon", but I think it is a great modification and I will adapt to it eventually.

ADD: I hope that the "poetic" description should be separated from "technical" description, for anyone who want to read the lores and where-it-comes-from of [skill]Bonetti's Defense[/skill], they can do it. For pvpers, "poetic" description doesn't help in the intense pvp environment.

Lagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

W/

15 Oct 2007 at 19:41 - 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

I completely, absolutely, totally, wholeheartedly agree.

But pick ONE system.

Don't have some skills written out completely and then others just stating what it does.

Either have all skill descriptions Romantic, like this:

Dismember. This fierceful axe blow dismembers your enemy, causing massive injury and a Deep Wound for xx seconds.

Or have all skill descriptions Rational, like this:

Dismember. If this attack hits, target foe suffers from Deep Wound for xx seconds.

But that's only moving the problem, since you'll have to romanticize the skills that are rational already.

For example, Remedy Signet, which is now simply: You lose 1 Condition.

You'll have to change that to something along the lines of: This Signet ring cures you of a physical or mental ailment.

The knife cuts both ways.

All I want is uniformity, whether romantic or rational.

Yanman.be

Banned

Join Date: Dec 2005

Belgium

[ROSE]

A/

15 Oct 2007 at 20:41 - 35

Eh what about addin additional lore to skills...have a switch in options...Stuff like bonetti's defense could have an entire story...galrath slash, grenth's balance, etc... basically all of the nice-named skills?

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

15 Oct 2007 at 21:07 - 36

I think people should not forget, it is not about romantic or rational, it is about clear and concise skill descriptions.

Some are very longish, unclear or ambiguous. And the uniformity that Lagg mentioned is not there either, especially for the older Prophecies skills.

Nevin

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2005

15 Oct 2007 at 21:24 - 37

Why not simply everything to basic common terms like...

Interrupt, Condition, Block, etc etc..

Then have each basic "term" underlined and highlighted like a link on an internet browser. Click it and the definition of the term comes up.

blakecraw

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Nov 2005

Austin, TX

15 Oct 2007 at 21:31 - 38

My biggest issue with skill descriptions is when it says I begin bleeding for xx seconds, when in fact I begin bleeding at one point in time, and I suffer from bleeding for an amount of time. So, sever artery should read:

If this attack hits, target foe suffers from Bleeding for 5...21...25 seconds.

I also agree w/ the op that descriptions need to be as concise and consistent as possible. Otherwise wouldn't a fiery phoenix count as one controlled minion? Or at least trigger soul reaping : )

Sleeper Service

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Dec 2005

CULT

15 Oct 2007 at 21:41 - 39

"...other foe.." and "...other ally..." in text make it hard to know just who they are referring to a foe of "them" or of "you" (thus making it a "ally").

can they just not put everything from the viewpoint of the PLAYER, ie: anything not on my team is HOSTILE. If its not on your team and not hostile then its not affected.

As for Conditions perhaps a "Expanded" mode that can be dis/enabled explaining what these do would be nice. That and "flavor text" for skills when using "concise" mode.

In all honesty i cant understand how they got it wrong so many times, the people who come up with these skills CLEARLY play(ed) MTG, and MTG has it pretty much down perfect. why did they not use the same system ? arrogance?

an example of CLEAR rules + flavour text:

the image has not been updated on site yet, it will now say : Flying, first strike, lifelink (Whenever this creature deals damage, you gain that much life.)

HawkofStorms

Hall Hero

Join Date: Aug 2005

E/

15 Oct 2007 at 22:05 - 40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

"...other foe.." and "...other ally..." in text make it hard to know just who they are referring to a foe of "them" or of "you" (thus making it a "ally").

I agree. Hexes like Shame and Guilt take a while to understand (stuff that targets foes and then affects when that foe targets a foe/ally). Is that foe/ally the foe/ally of the hexed foe or my foe/ally?